CAMPAIGN FINANCE rules in Massachusetts keep on losing their bite. Under state law, an individual can contribute no more than $500 per year to a given political candidate. But as the Globe's Frank Phillips recently reported, Governor Patrick's political team is using an arrangement that allows contributors to give significantly more. The Legislature ought to fix this and other loopholes.
But as the legislative session winds down, chances for major campaign-finance improvements look slimmer by the day. And legislation being discussed by the Joint Committee on Election Laws doesn't address the fund-raising arrangements documented in the Globe.
The governor's Seventy-First Fund is an argument for reform, for it violates the spirit of the existing law. Contributors can give up to $5,500, of which $500 goes to Patrick's campaign fund and the remainder to the Democratic Party. But the party used most of the money it received from the fund last year to pay political expenses for Patrick. In effect, contributors can give Patrick's campaign more money than the law intends.
Proponents of such techniques argue that the governor's political activities aren't easily distinguishable from his party's. State Democratic officials maintain that the Seventy-First Fund operates transparently. (The fund is so named because Patrick is the state's 71st governor.) And in an interview, party chair John Walsh argued that the fund pays for training, internships, and other party-building activities.
But even if parties and their leading elected officials are coordinating their campaigns more tightly, that shouldn't be a pretext for letting candidates exploit the higher limits that apply to political parties. Candidates for governor might argue that a $500 limit is too stringent, at least in a statewide race, but the current loophole amounts to a de facto contribution limit of $5,500. The Legislature needs to rein this practice in.
Unfortunately, the election laws committee has made little effort to do so. Legislation in the works there would make some valuable changes: Candidates who failed to file reports, for instance, could be removed from the ballot; fines for late reports would be increased; and electronic reporting rules would get tougher. But the draft legislation also raises the contribution limit from $500 to $750, regardless of office. The need for such an across-the-board increase is hardly evident.
Campaign contributions give special interests a powerful way to collect chits on Beacon Hill, so the state needs a system of reasonable, enforceable limits. The clock is running out this year - but the need for reform remains.
